FREDERICK J. MARTONE, Senior District Judge.
The court has before it Defendants' Motion to Seal Exhibits (doc. 107) to Defendants' Separate Statement of Facts in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (docs. 102-1, 102-2, 102-3, 102-4, 102-5, and 102-6).
A party seeking to seal judicial records must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings" to overcome the "strong presumption" in favor of the public's interest in full disclosure. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
In support of the motion to seal, and without identifying which exhibits, Defendants argue only that "[t]wo of the documents contain a social security number and financial account information, " and the other exhibits "are the subject of a protective order." Rather than explain why these exhibits should be sealed, Defendants state only that "[o]ut of an abundance of caution" they seek to have the records sealed.
These are not compelling reasons to seal judicial records. Any motion to file a document under seal must set forth with particularity the basis for sealing and fully comply with the procedure set forth in LRCiv 5.6. Defendants have neither satisfied Kamakana, nor shown that they have complied with LRCiv. 5.6. Moreover, Rule 5.2(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires parties to redact social security numbers and other data before filing. This remains an option under LRCiv. 5.6(e).
IT IS ORDERED DENYING Defendants' Motion to Seal Exhibits without prejudice to making the ...